Guess what I am going to say.

I heard that interview with Shelby Steele and i was kind of disappointed by it. Basically he was criticizing Obama's rehtoric of "hope" for not giving enough of an idication of where he was in terms of "who he is" and characterized Obama as a racial "bargainer" in this dichotomy he set up between "bargainers vs. challengers". Basically he praised Clinton for being exactly what she seems to be - old-school liberal with a DLC centerist orientation. My problem with Steele's criticism of Obama's campaign being to much about "style" is that all of his analysis was focused on "style" itslef - and not policy. If your beef with the "rhetoric of hope" is that its too vague about policy, why not discuss the policy which is all out there - on his website and in his voting record. Its oxymoronic to criticize a candidate for being too much about "style" and then base your analysis on nothing but "style" iself as I see it.

I was severely disappointed that noone on the show - not Marty Moss Cohane, not the other guest, not any of the callers called Steele on this. Basically the jist of his critique of Obama is that Obama by avoiding talking about race, ironically makes his whole campaign about race. The thing is on both on that particular show and as black intellectual affiliated with the conservative Hoover Institute, Steele himself uses race to give his voice "authenticity" in exactly the same way that he criticizes Obama's campaign for benefiting it from. Plus its just a little hard to swallow any black intellectual affiliated with the Hoover Institute profiting on harping against a candidate with at least reasonably progressive policy orientation, who made his bones doing political organizing Chicago's South Side as too much a "bargainer".

More to the general point, it surprises me little that many here support Edwards and I would very much like Edwards to place well as sign to the party as a whole to not drift too far towards the DLC. On the other hand I don't think Edwards will win the nomination and I unfortunately don't myself percieve him as a strong candidate in November.

For myself, I tentatively support Obama for largely pragmatic reasons. I believe the polls showing him doing better in head-to-head comparisons against any of the likely Republicans than Hillary does and I think he is the strongest candidate to win in November as a result. For lots of "regular people", not wonkish self-described "progressives", and surprisingly both men and women, Hillary just has too many "negatives". Conservatives hate-hate-hate her with a passion, partially out of simple sexism, partially out of the lingering perception of her in particular as cold, calculating and insincere that may be amplified in many cases by sexism but also originates from her specific personality. A lot of those ridiculously over-sited "swing voters" have these same "negatives" as well.

I not only think an Obama administration would have policy goals that were slightly more progressive than a Clinton one, but it would be a hell of lot more successful in selling it to the rest of the country. Being a charismatic "great communicator" has historically helped Presidents achieve legislative success whether they were Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - even if we intellectually think it shouldn't.

Its one of the ironic things about the Obama-Clinton dynamic is that on the one hand you have Obama, who in terms of his record and policy is often more progressive than Clinton, running a rhetorical campaign that reaches out to Independents and even Republicans and Clinton who is definitely a DLC economic centerist and a hawk portraying herself increasingly in terms of rhetoric as an Edwards-light populist, in part to eat into Edwards support and inch out Obama. Its quite topsy-turvy.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

This whole article is pretty good, but I was surprised by how skeptical Russ Feingold is of Edwards.

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary

Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

D.E. II:

I am glad you asked and I think Mr. Luigi made several outstanding points that in the sake of brevity I will not repeat. I was recently asked to serve as the Eastern Pennsylvania Coordinator for the Obama Campaign, so I will gladly give you a few spare minutes or hours of my time to share with you why I think progressives should support Senator Obama.

As you are aware, I ran for District Attorney of Philadelphia in 2005. As a result of witnessing that campaign up close and personal, my wife H-A-T-E-S politics. For all of the same reasons my wife H-A-T-E-S the local electoral process she L-O-V-E-S Senator Obama's message of hope, his ability to inspire, his fundamental principles of fairness and his vision of uniting rather than dividing us. I would suggest that you read his first book "Dreams of My Father". I think you will find this autobiography very illustrative of the events that have made him the person he is today and given him his perspective of the world.

Last February I drove my wife and daughters to Springfield, Illinois so that we could be present for the Senator's announcement on the steps of the Old State Capitol building. Hearing his speach and watching my daughters as they and 20,000 others listened was worth the 1760 mile round trip drive in the family minivan (are we there yet).

Just a few weeks ago we drove to Keene, New Hampshire to canvass and work the phone banks. We want our daughters to know that democracy comes at a cost.

I think the question you posed is an important one and I think the decision for progressives is a choice between former Senator Edwards and Senator Obama. I do not want to speak negatively of other candidates, but to best answer your question I think you have to ask yourself, and each voter must ask him or herself, what does it mean to be a progressive and second, what exactly is it that you want from a president.

Of course I want a president that embraces the majority of my political philosophies...but in addition to agreeing with me, and fighting for the causes I beleive in, I have a fixed opinion of what a leader is and what I expect from a president.

I want a president that will inspire us, will challenge us to achieve greatness and not merely accept the status quo. That will dare us to dream of what can be. The president should be able to make us feel good about our nation again without making us anti anyone or everyone else.

What should a president be? I think part of being president is the ability to put his or her arms around the nation in times of crisis. A president must be able to attract the best and brightest and then give them the ability to do the jobs they are appointed. I want a president that will be willing to listen to opposing points of view both foreign and domestic, and not just seek the opinion of those that agree.

I could ramble on and on, but to me the choice is clear.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

Seth

D.E.II:

America needs Obama's unifing vision. Amercia needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. America needs his ability to inspire and restore hope.

You asked am I troubled by his lack of specificity, that would assume that he lacks specifics. The only way I would come to that conclusion would be if I believed the spin doctors of his main opponent. He has specific ideas and his message focuses on middle-class tax relief, a commitment to sensible phased withdrawal and a redepolyment of U.S troops in Iraq, public-private partnerships to guarantee health coverage for all American.

Don't just take my word for it, go to www.barackobama.com and then strike the issues tab. That will give you a taste of the specifics that often get drowned out in the noise of his opponents sending surrogates to attack him.

You also asked what are we doing to organize this region. The Obama campaign is very committed to organizing from the bottom up. A strong network of local activist is forming across this nation. I have been given the task of coordinating the petition drive and field campaign in the seven Congressional Districts of Eastern Pennsylvania. We are also lucky to currently have a paid campaing staff member, Taryn Benarroch.

There are many organized groups supporting Senator Obama's candidacy. Again you can go to the campaign website and find a list of them. You can also go to www.phillyforobama.com to learn about one of the local grass roots group of which I speak.

We have a lot of work to do and can use the help of everyone that yearns for a new style of leadership...one that transcends race and the old political labels. Feel free to email me for more details at EasternPAforObama@verizon.net or Seth@PhillyforObama.com

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

Seth

Although it is the longshot of long shots now, Edwards is my guy. Then, to me, it is a close race between Obama and Clinton, with Obama ahead.

First, why Edwards?

I support him acknowledging that he was a generally mediocre Senator. But, I also believe that people can evolve (See, Kennedy, R., Gore, A., etc.), and when they don't have a ton to lose, become the politician they probably think they should have been all along. He consistently has the most progressive policy positions, and by far the most progressive rhetoric- a progressive populism that I think is the way forward for our country. Last year, when I started really looking at the candidates, I continually expected him to hedge center, and every time he did the opposite. And frankly, I think he understands that Healthcare companies (or oil companies, etc), are not going to bargain away their positions.

And, in a time of where everything seems poll tested, etc. to middle of the road voters, Edwards talks about forgotten people in our country, over and over and over. When is the last time a Presidential candidate made his campaign explicitly about ending poverty?

Second, Obama. Why I like him? Well, I think in many ways, for most reasons already said, he can also be a 'map changer.' And, as a future public interest lawyer, I can certainly respect someone from a Harvard law grad who ignored big money jobs and instead did a couple years of community organizing. Finally, his campaign has excited young voters in a pretty incredible way, which could lock in a generation of Dem voters.

That said, I am uncomfortable with some of his instincts. For example, whether it it simply a way to get noticed in a campaign, or maybe something deeper, he has attacked Clinton and Edwards from the right. That really bothers me, a lot. He campaigned with a 'cure the gays' religious bigot, and acted indignant when people questioned him about it. Those types of things scare me.

Third, Clinton.... some good policy positions, not as good as Edwards, slightly better than Obama. I think she would be a decent president.

But, she seems to me the most likely to take us into a new war, and keep us in the current one the longest. She also is 100 percent entrenched in the weird, corrupt lobbyist culture of Washington DC (to which, Philadelphia corruption is not in the same stratosphere). So, while she may take progressive positions, when lobbyists have paid for her campaign, I just can't believe she will actually take them on in any significant way, and will continue the corporatization of the party.

All that said, at leats by policy positions, all three candidates are significantly more progressive than the campaigns of John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and Bill Clinton. So, we got that going for us, which is nice.

Edwards does indeed have the best polices but he just isn't going to win. Hillary is by far the choice most should make. Why? Beyond the fact we often wear the same suits, competence counts. And so does someone not afraid to fight. To knock Rudy's teeth out. To kick Newt in the family jewels. To stare down Ken Starr. She says no more cowboy diplomacy abroad but she will certainly go WWF on the republicans here at home. And that's exactly what this country needs. Obama can talk all he wants about uniting, just like BUsh did. Uniter, not a divider. Remember? While Obama makes speeches, the grownups have been working hard. If you vote your conscience, then go with Edwards. But if you want to vote for president, Hillary is the choice. I love her pearls.

But it strikes me how often if it comes down to Clinton vs. Obama, the most ardent supporters of both seem to cite a unerring belief that their candidate would do better in the general election. Both can't be right.

Polling pretty consistantly favors Obama on this point at least but Hillary supporters frequently cite "the Bradley factor" either explicitly or in more vague terms. I've seen it creep up on other forums as well. Just wondering how folks feel about that one. Real issue in 2008 or not?

I will say that from what I can decipher Hillary the candidate is more progressive than Hillary the Senator's voting record has necessarily been and hopefully thats a good sign if she does in fact win the primary. Either way it will be a huge improvement over what we have now.

Whoever the nominee is, I have to point out they will almost certainly not be facing Guliani at this point. I think it will likely be Mitt Romney though I vacillate between hoping for some surprise victory for Huckabee because he would be easiest to beat and a deep dark fear that should that unlikely scenario come to pass he might *Dear God!* actually become President - which would of course be an unmitigated disaster for this country.

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

than the Clinton campaign tactics: the smear tactics on Obama's admission of drug use, the tactics with the unions in Las Vegas, her mocking Obama for saying he'd have dialogue with Iran?

Not to mention that the "Rovian" tactics of twisting Obama's words to accuse him of supporting Reagan's policies - which even if it isn't a "rightwing" campaign tactic, is pretty disgusting nonetheless.

I don't know. Krugman makes good points, but I'm not sure that if you applied the same analysis to Clinton's campaign, you couldn't arrive at a very similar conclusion. Perhaps Obama is less progressive on matters of foreign policy, but Clinton has a long history of "triangulating" to the right on matters of foreign policy.

First, the Republicans. They're basically screwed. The GOP will have to run, as one conservative commentator noted, as the party of war and recession. The field is so scrambled because it's so weak. Anyone could still win, although I suspect it'll be either McCain or Romney. In some ways, it doesn't matter who the GOP nominates. Democrats will be running against George W. Bush and that's bad news for Republicans.

To me, one of the most interesting phenomenas in the Republican field is Ron Paul. He has raised more money that almost all of the candidates on the GOP side. His supporters are enthusiastic and he keeps getting a solid percentage of the vote in every primary. This is a guy who is so extreme he makes Mike Gravel sound reasonable. If you look far enough into his past, you can find an ugly history of overt racism and bigotry. And this guy has raised more than $20 million. Weird.

I am pretty happy with all three of the leading candidates. There is a lot of ideological unity on major issues like health care, Iraq, and the economy. Sure, some candidates have better positions than others, but everyone is generally going in the right direction.

That said, I have been an unabashed Obama fan from the beginning. I read both of his books in college and saw him speak while I was an intern. I have met a lot of great people who support Obama and it's been cool to see so many people interested in politics. Still, I can't argue that Edwards isn't better on the issues.

Clinton is more complicated. I think she would be a good president and I admire all she has accomplished. Still, I can't help but feel uncomfortable with the idea of having two families control the presidency for 24 years. It just seems undemocratic to me.

By 70%, to 30% for Clinton, reports the NYT.